I can't imagine any landscape photographer would want a 46.1Mp tool with diffraction limit starting at f/5.6 already.

"starting at" is the key... AFAIK other than very large prints it may not really start to be visible until much smaller apertures. Neuro or Jrista can tell us more I'm sure. But fair point, for serious landscape medium format would still be leaps and bounds ahead.

Here to save the day!! ;P

Knew you could!

I think what happens is that when us science guys (I only loosely, very loosely, include myself in that category) make statements such as "diffraction limits" and "diffraction starts to affect image quality" we mean that on a calculated basis where there is a measurable affects (e.g. where the tail of the Airy disk from one pixel is at least 5% of the intensity of the adjacent pixel or something thing like that) but the non-science folks (i.e. normal and socially tolerable people ) think we mean that it starts to become noticeable and visually affects image quality. And they might think it means that beyond the stated limit IQ drops off a cliff. We need to do a better job explaining these things.

Thanks to Jrista and Neuro for always providing the technical voices of reason and truth!

One bad thing about 46MP is more than 5fps seems VERY unlikely. 38MP would be plenty enough and if it could do 5fps at 46MP it could do 6fps at 38MP. In all honesty, noticing 38MP vs 46MP is a LOT tougher than noticing 5fps vs 6fps. OK sure they can brag it's a fully 10MP above the D800, but making it speedy enough for action/wildlife (which the 38MP reach would help with too) would make FAR more practical sense to me. Sure some pure studio and landscape would take the 46MP, but they'd be making it a lot less well-rounded, making it more specialized and likely higher cost, for, IMO, not THAT much practical benefit.

Short-body. Canon have only ever used tall-bodies for 1D-series for PRO's to accommodate larger battery pack + additional buttons for vertical shooting. The 3D will be first and foremost a Landscape/Studio camera

Hmmm, "...first and foremost a Landscape/Studio camera." That sounds a lot like how Canon has described the 1Ds line. After all, 's' = 'studio', right?

Still, unless this is called a 1D Xs, I expect anything other than a 1-series will not have an integrated grip.

This might be partially my own wishful thinking. But if this is going to be a splash (as described in the original article), then I think (and hope) it's a proper 1Ds replacement. It could be a new format sensor. Perhaps that 30x45 size or something encroaching on medium format.

Personally, I think there are enough sub-1DX full frame cameras in the lineup already (5D3, 5D2, 6D). If Canon is going to innovate and "make a splash" I expect a 1Ds replacement...which means it'll be somewhere around $10k.

I'm surprised there's no mention of the 1Dc, how much was that "firmware upgrade from 1Dx" going for again?As with 4K being a "special feature" what's stopping Canon from labeling the super resolution as a special feature that excludes itself from all others, and thus deserving of an insane price tag?Then again rumours are rumours, this beast is either pro level, or in the spirit of the original 5D, a large mp FF sensor in a not-so-special-at-all body?

part of me think the 36MP with amazing DR will have to keep the 46MP Canon price in check, WAYYYY in check unless the new Canon also has top DR

but part of me thinks Canon went 46MP 5fps instead of a more all-around useful 38MP 6fps (also with more perfect video reads) because they are oooooo it's a full TEN more MP than the D800 now we can charge whatever, maybe even $7000, maybe even $9000 and will give us a less all-around camera and go MP crazy and dump a higher price and also think they don't need to match DR just because it has 10 more MP now

Instead of focusing on what would make it a more all-around camera, part of the desire for MP is for more reach and when you want reach you often times would want better body response and more fps, once you are to 6fps you can at least live withit, even it it is not ideal. So giving it just a few less MP, which will be harder to spot anyway for landscape prints than frames an extra 1 fps apart difference and crop modes instead of silly sRAW/mRAW would make it a really cool all around camera instead of a specialized studio/landscape cam (at a perhaps higher price and lower sales).

I can't imagine any landscape photographer would want a 46.1Mp tool with diffraction limit starting at f/5.6 already.

"starting at" is the key... AFAIK other than very large prints it may not really start to be visible until much smaller apertures. Neuro or Jrista can tell us more I'm sure. But fair point, for serious landscape medium format would still be leaps and bounds ahead.

quick test:does your 7D set to f/8 capture more detail than your 20D (or 5D2/5D3 center APS-C crop) set to f/5.6?There is a good answer.

I think what happens is that when us science guys (I only loosely, very loosely, include myself in that category) make statements such as "diffraction limits" and "diffraction starts to affect image quality" we mean that on a calculated basis where there is a measurable affects (e.g. where the tail of the Airy disk from one pixel is at least 5% of the intensity of the adjacent pixel or something thing like that) but the non-science folks (i.e. normal and socially tolerable people ) think we mean that it starts to become noticeable and visually affects image quality. And they might think it means that beyond the stated limit IQ drops off a cliff. We need to do a better job explaining these things.

good points

all too many do seem to take it as a hard limit and some even take it to mean that the higher density camera will even do not just instantly no better, but actually worse, once past the limit

If Canon releases such a high MP camera, then price will be one of the major factors accountable for its success. It does not look like an "upgrade" cam for 5DMKIII as it will appeal to a limited market (landscapes and studio shooters), so it will not be in any real direct competition with 5DMKIII.

Wait a second. I thought studio and landscape shooters represent the majority of the market, at least according to all the whiners on Canon Rumors

I don't know if this month but this is coming no matter what. And expect even HIGHER resolution 50+ from Nikon/sony to follow. And to all those people what were complaining that 36MP is too much, yada yada, are going to be the FIRST to jump on this because ultimately it was never about the megapixels as much as it was the fact canon dropped the ball

One bad thing about 46MP is more than 5fps seems VERY unlikely. 38MP would be plenty enough and if it could do 5fps at 46MP it could do 6fps at 38MP. In all honesty, noticing 38MP vs 46MP is a LOT tougher than noticing 5fps vs 6fps. OK sure they can brag it's a fully 10MP above the D800, but making it speedy enough for action/wildlife (which the 38MP reach would help with too) would make FAR more practical sense to me. Sure some pure studio and landscape would take the 46MP, but they'd be making it a lot less well-rounded, making it more specialized and likely higher cost, for, IMO, not THAT much practical benefit.

There was also the mention (rumor) that it would be fully 16-bit. At a full 16-bits, 5fps @ 46.1mp is actually pretty impressive. Canon did release that 120mp APS-H sensor prototype a couple years ago, which had a reasonable readout rate. I can't say for sure, but if Canon is using some kind of hyperparallel readout like Sony, we should be able to get decent readout rates at high MP in the future. Whether we'll be able to get 10-12fps is anyone's guess, but 6..7...maybe even 8fps in the future?